Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
billions of dollars. and that money's going to go towards energy efficiency and it's going to go towards helping homeowne homeowners, rate payers. >> why doesn't the state say stop polluting instead of selling you permission to pollute? >> the cap will come down. the overall greenhouse gases emissions will come down. they don't care where the cuts come from. some companies will pollute more than others. >> so the auction isn't legal? what was it? >> yes, they were challenging the state's right to collect revenue from selling allowances. they're not against the cap and not against the trading is what they say, it's the state making money from it. >> so couldn't that be where maybe we see the two-thirds less play of the majority in sacramento? couldn't they say, fine, it's not a fee, it's a tax? then the money could go to anything? >> it's a lot of money. it certainly is. billions of dollars, you know, over the years. some of it is ledgislated already. some are already impacted by pollution. some of it will have to be spent there. >> when you say it's billions of dollars, what do you mean
dollars more a year to california. half of that money is going in the first five years to renewable energy projects, energy efficiency projects at schools. going to create a lot of jobs. and its chairman who put $29 million into it is probably going to be a novembcandidate f governor. >> or cabinet. >> why proposition 38 went down? the other education -- >> well, i think part of it was the amount of money that the teacher's union sent against it. and the governor coming out, saying, look, we just have to get this done. but it went down by a greater margin than i thought. there were a lot of people who voted for both, sort of hinging their bet. and i think there was a lot on the ball lot for all voters and i thought to a large degree they seemed very thoughtful. >> and to paul's point, a lot of people would have had to pay under the munger legislation. >> everybody. >> where at some of the others, i'm not in that category. >> belva: turning back to the national scene, we're going to see some changes in the new administration in washington? >> well, there are some californians, we talked abo
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)